The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down seven decisions yesterday. It was an eventful day with three med mal cases (one under the MTCA), a real property case, two direct criminal appeals (one death penalty case), and a public employment termination case. Of these seven cases, there were four reversals including two on cert. There is a noteworthy special concurrence in the MTCA case that garnered a majority of the votes which, in that case, was four out of six participating votes. I would be remiss if I did not also note the appearance of a concurrence dubitante.
Johnson v. Cleveland, 2023-CT-01011-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the judgment of the circuit court on cert, holding that the plaintiff has standing to assert her adverse possession claim.
(4-1-2: Coleman for the Court; Randolph concurred dubitante; Brannning dissented, joined by Griffis; Wilson did not participate)
Upchurch v. Lewis, 2023-CT-01296-SCT, consolidated with Lewis v. Upchurch, No. 2024-CT-00396-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the judgment of the circuit court on cert, holding that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants and that the circuit court therefore did not err in denying the motion for JNOV and new trial.
(7-0: Griffis for the Court)
University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Carter, 2024-IA-00038-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the MTCA statute of limitations on interlocutory appeal, holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the discovery rule.
(5-4*-0: Branning for the court; *Coleman specially concurred, joined by Ishee, Griffis, and Branning; Randolph and Wilson did not participate)
Practice Point – Coleman’s special concurrence garnered the support of three fellow justices giving it a total of four votes. With the addition of Judge Celeste Embry Wilson to the Court, we are now up to are eight justices. But neither Justice Wilson nor Chief Justice Randolph participated in this case. That means that the special concurrence received four of the six votes in the case. In other words, a majority. Here is the conclusion of the special concurrence.
The special concurrence did not say it did overrule Barnes and Caves and hold that there is no discovery rule under the MTCA, but that it would. Justice King and Justice Sullivan did not join the special concurrence. It looks like all it would take in the next case is Chief Justice Randolph, newly appointed Justice Wilson, or the yet-to-be-appointed ninth justice to get on board with the special concurrence’s position to bring that change to fruition.
Brown v. Davey-Sullivan, 2024-CA-00693-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming the circuit courts grant of summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce the required expert testimony to establish a triable claim.
(6-1: Griffis for the Court; Coleman dissented; Wilson did not participate)
Heard v. State, 2024-DP-00802-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming capital-murder conviction and death sentence, holding that the trial court did not commit plain error by admitting certain testimony, that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be denied without prejudice; that the trial court did not err by allowing a lay witness to give certain opinions; that the trial court did not err in excluding a character witness’s opinion testimony about the defendant’s truthfulness; that the trial court did not err by failing to make a reliability determination about testimony regarding a software program used to extract information from cell phones; that the sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate; that the trial court did not err by giving a sentencing instruction regarding heinous atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstances because it was supported by sufficient evidence; that the death sentence was not unconstitutional, cruel, and unusual punishment; and that section 99-19-105(3) is not applicable.
(7-0: Griffis for the Court; Wilson did not participate)
Coahoma County School District Board of Education v. Moore, 2024-IA-01316-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the county court’s denial of summary judgment for the school board, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid compensation under theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were foreclosed by the minutes rule.
(6-1: Branning for the court; Coleman dissented; Wilson did not participate)
Bozard v. State, 2025-KA-00393-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felony evasion, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
(7-0: Randolph for the Court)
Other Orders
- Mississippi Bar v. Owens, 2026-BD-00754-SCT (accepting Jody E. Owens’s resignation with prejudice from the Mississippi Bar, and such resignation shall be tantamount to proof of guilt on the matter charged, and ordering that Jody E. Owens II is hereby immediately and permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi)
- In Re: The Mississippi Access to Justice Commission, 89-R-99032-SCT (appointing or reappointing the following Commissioners of the Mississippi Access to Justice Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2029: Justice Leslie King; Mary Purvis; Judge Richard “Wes” Ryals, II; Catherine Servati; Patrick Bryan; Chancellor E. Vincent Davis; and Representative Justis Gibbs, and thanking the following outgoing Commissioners for their dedicated service: David Calder; Dan Hall; and Judge Denise Owens.)
- Gray v. State, 2023-CT-01270-SCT (denying cert)
- Williams v. State, 2024-CT-00257-SCT (denying cert)
- Brown v. State, 2024-CT-00489-SCT (denying cert)
- White v. State, 2024-CT-00658-SCT (denying cert)
- Norman v. State, 2024-CT-01107-SCT (Denying cert)
- Winn v. State, 2024-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)
- In The Matter Of: The Application of Mollie Parsons Sells for Recognition Under The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 4025a, 2025-M-00821 (granting Petition for Limited Order Authorizing the Board of Bar Admissions to Grant Application for Admission to Practice Law Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4025a)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 